Fighting the Right

Glenn Beck said on his show today that while he hasn’t actually seen the White House Correspondents Dinner video with Julia Louis-Dreyfus featuring Joe Biden, Michelle Obama and John Boehner, he knows for a fact that it wasn’t funny and is outraged that his own website, The Blaze, ran an article with the headline: “Biden Mocks Himself in Hilarious Comedy Skit for White House Correspondents Dinner.”

Beck insisted that the video he had not seen was definitely “not hilarious” as “only the blind, deaf, dumb or those in the administration think it is hilarious.”

He proceeded to discuss a clip from the video in which Louis-Dreyfus and Biden walk in on Pelosi — whom Beck mocks as wearing “a giant clown jumpsuit” — in a tattoo parlor. “Why are they getting tattoos?” Beck asked. “Don’t they know that they’re the ones that are going to be running the camps? They don’t get the tattoos, they give the tattoos,” he said, alluding to the tattoos that prisoners were given at Nazi concentration camps.

Beck also said he went to the White House Correspondents Dinner once but will never return: “My wife and I left and said, should we go and take a shower because I feel like I’ve just been raped.”

“It’s an awful, awful experience, filled with just some of the worst people ever assembled in one building.”

He likened his dislike of the correspondents’ event it to his harshcriticism of the movie Noah, saying that people in the film industry now fear his disapproval. The movie was a box office success.

Larry Klayman insists Americans had “stopped thinking in racial terms” until Barack Obama was elected president, which is why Klayman says that Obama is to blame for recent racist statements made by Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling.

“While I cannot with certainty explain the recent outbursts of what the mainstream media perceived as racism by Cliven Bundy, owner of the Bundy ranch in Nevada, and Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, this feeling and latent resentment by whites that they do not have a president who represents their interests, but instead is prejudiced against them, may be a large part of the underlying cause,” Klayman said.

“Much as blacks experienced in the years leading up to Obama’s election, and even to today, whites now feel disenfranchised by our chief executive, and they may be striking back subconsciously with this resentment.”

We Americans had thought we had come a long way since the days of the civil rights movement lead by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Over the decades since his tragic death, freedom for African-Americans had been increasing, and their upper movement among all strata of society has been clear for all to see and experience. In effect, the American people by and large stopped thinking in racial terms; the words of Martin Luther King increasingly had taken hold in deeds.

While I for one did not vote for President Barack Obama in 2008 (nor in 2012), I felt good as an American that We the People had elected an African-American, something even our “enlightened” European white ancestors had never done. Indeed, while Obama obviously had received a large percentage of the African-American vote, it was white people who put him over the top and in effect elected him in both 2008 and 2012. As a result, both the African-American and Caucasian races had much to be proud of. They also had a right to expect that the new president would seek to represent all of us, not just his own people, in his new job.

But things did not turn out as hoped for. Obama and his cronies spent the next five years favoring African-Americans and people of color over all other groups of society, and it became painfully obvious that this socialist saw himself as the one person who could extract a pound of flesh for all the years of insidious discrimination against blacks, dating back to even the years before the founding of the republic. In effect, Obama and his friends – ranging from black Muslims, to anti-Semites, to anti-Christians, atheists and other ultra-leftists – saw his presidency as an opportunity to “settle the score” with not just conservatives but rich whites. If this meant bankrupting the country with higher taxes on rich whites and other means to extract what in effect were reparations, then this was the price that needed to be paid for past discrimination. It was time for “whitey” to pay up, and to hell with the economic and social health of the nation.

…

In this context, and as I have written before, the irony is that under the Obama presidency there has been a role reversal; whites, and particularly rich ones, are now at the back of the bus. While it is not politically correct in today’s world for whites to raise this feeling in public, there has developed regrettably and tragically an undercurrent of deep resentment among whites, which is now starting to manifest itself in major ways.

While I cannot with certainty explain the recent outbursts of what the mainstream media perceived as racism by Cliven Bundy, owner of the Bundy ranch in Nevada, and Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, this feeling and latent resentment by whites that they do not have a president who represents their interests, but instead is prejudiced against them, may be a large part of the underlying cause. Much as blacks experienced in the years leading up to Obama’s election, and even to today, whites now feel disenfranchised by our chief executive, and they may be striking back subconsciously with this resentment.

…

These remarks are wrong and offensive and certainly not politically correct, but regrettably they may be understandable given the highly resentful mood among whites created by Obama and his friends.

The atmosphere of racial divide President Obama and his comrades have fomented is extremely unhealthy if not cancerous for the body politic of this nation. It runs counter to the words and deeds of the person he attributes for his rise to the presidency, Martin Luther King Jr. Obama has set back the civil rights movement to the days preceding King and the advancement in race relations that followed his death.

If Obama does not start to show that he represents all Americans, expect more Cliven Bundys and Donald Sterlings to reactively bring race into the national dialogue.

In a blog post Friday, World Congress of Families communications director Don Feder tackled the conservative debate over whether President Obama is an evil genius or a “dumb-bunny,” and concludes that the president is somewhere in between. Alongside his “ideological soul-mates" like “Stalin, Hitler, Al Capone [and] Meyer Lansky," Feder writes, Obama is “cold, calculating, ruthless, and diabolically clever at advancing his agenda.”

Feder goes on to argue that the president wants Americans to be poor and jobless: “Obama hates American preeminence. He hates economic growth. He hates energy production. He hates the private sector and middle-class prosperity. He hates a system where consumers can shop for health insurance and have real choices.

“He wants to leave America poorer, job growth stagnant, our people more dependent, and our economy gasping for air. That will be his enduring legacy to our national decline. America's failure is Obama's success.”

Feder has previously argued that Obama and gays in the military are a bigger threat to American national security than Russian President Vladimir Putin.

I keep getting e-mails from clueless conservatives about what a dumb-bunny our president is. This bromide has been rattling around the right since 2008: Obama can't walk and chew gum without the aid of a teleprompter. He'd need a brain transplant to achieve the IQ of dirt.
…

Okay, Obama isn't a bloody genius. Neither was Stalin, Hitler, Al Capone or Meyer Lansky. But like his ideological soul-mates, Obama is cold, calculating, ruthless, and diabolically clever at advancing his agenda. He also keeps a low profile. To quote Al Pacino as the Prince of Darkness in "The Devil's Advocate" – "They never see me coming."

…

Obama wants to do more – raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 an hour. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that will annihilate another 500,000 jobs. Bill Gates observes: "If you raise the minimum wage, you're encouraging labor substitution and you're going to go buy machines and automate things.... It does cause job destruction."

The president is counting on it. High unemployment is a symphony for the party of plunder. It gets to play lord bountiful with regular extensions of long-term unemployment benefits (now up to 99 weeks) which heartless Republicans will be castigated for opposing. As more Americans slip below the poverty line, the Democrats' base grows, and the president has another opportunity to demagogue about the "growing problem of income-inequality" and push new programs from the playbook of Marx and Engels.

Unlike employment, food stamps has had banner growth in the Obama years, up from 26 million in 2007 to 47 million this year. According to the Census Bureau, by 2011, more Americans were receiving one or more means-tested federal programs than were employed full-time, year round. These programs, which cost almost $1 trillion annually, cover over 100 million Americans.

Democratic power grows from dependency. The left wants a swelling army of the dole-addicted looking to Washington for food, housing, health care and other necessities – a mob which will storm the polls every two years to vote their perceived interests.

…

Obama hates American preeminence. He hates economic growth. He hates energy production. He hates the private sector and middle-class prosperity. He hates a system where consumers can shop for health insurance and have real choices.

He wants to leave America poorer, job growth stagnant, our people more dependent, and our economy gasping for air. That will be his enduring legacy to our national decline. America's failure is Obama's success.

Stupid, inept, incompetent, hapless? The president and his supporters hope you'll keep right on underestimating him.

In a blog post Friday, anti-gay activist Scott Lively speculated that President Obama and the “New World Order” oppose Russia’s seizure of Crimea because of President Vladimir Putin’s “unequivocal stand against homosexual perversion.” Lively urged his fellow conservatives to back Putin in the Ukrainian conflict because Russia is “the only world power that is standing up to the LGBT agenda and embracing Biblical values on family issues.”

I personally think Obama’s motives and timing in the Ukrainian coup (and subsequent push for war) are influenced at least in part by Putin’s unequivocal stand against homosexual perversion.

…

When the US and EU sponsored Ukraine coup occurred, following the Ukrainian government’s refusal to move closer to the EU, I pointed out that a significant factor for the Ukrainians was probably the LGBT agenda of the EU vs the pro-family agenda of the Russian Federation.

I think today’s story provides a slight boost to my hypothesis.

I caution US conservatives not to fall into line with Obama against the Russians. There is far more to this crisis than the war-propaganda and spin of the western media (including some conservative outlets) would have us believe. I for one will not take sides with the New World Order crowd against the only world power that is standing up to the LGBT agenda and embracing Biblical values on family issues. At least not over a geo-political crisis in which (IMHO) the Russians are clearly in the right.

Today, the 700 Club host warned that the party is facing a takeover by “radicals on the right” who will nominate candidates who “aren’t capable of beating the Democrats.”

Of course, the Religious Right movement spearheaded by televangelists like Robertson has been one of the forces moving the GOP toward the conservative fringe.

You know how the Republicans are, they can snatch defeats from the jaws of victory with great ease. The next thing you know, there’s a whole bunch of radicals on the right knocking off established figures and saying, we’re going to call on them to be responsible. Before long, the candidates the Republicans put out aren’t capable of beating the Democrats and so the Democrats laugh all the way to the ballot box and beyond. In any event, it’s theirs to lose right now, we’ll see what happens. The people have had enough of what’s going on in Washington and they will show their displeasure at the polls unless the Republicans screw up, which they’re perfectly capable of doing.

Knight claims that suing JONAH over its offer to turn gay people straight – a practice discredited by all of the country’s majorcounselingandpsychiatricgroups – is like suing Alcoholics Anonymous or Weight Watchers.

“If the SPLC’s argument is valid that all temptations must cease for counseling to be legitimate,” Knight writes, “Alcoholics Anonymous, Weight Watchers and other groups assisting with behavioral change should be charged with fraud because some clients fall off the wagon.”

The Alabama-based SPLC has a project called Teaching Tolerance, with a website and print periodical of that name aimed at educators. Much of it deals with countering bullies.

Yet the SPLC itself, with a $281 million endowment and scores of attorneys, is the consummate bully in a case involving a tiny New Jersey organization.

Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH) counsels people with unwanted desires, including same-sex attraction. The SPLC’s lawsuit contends that the group is committing fraud under New Jersey’s consumer law.

Their argument? People are born with same-sex desires, they cannot possibly change in any way and, therefore, any counseling to reduce temptations or re-channel them toward the opposite sex is fraudulent. This preposterous claim is based on the same thinking behind laws in New Jersey and California that punish licensed counselors for trying to help parents deal with their children’s unwanted same-sex desires.

The SPLC’s lawsuit, like those laws, violates the basic right to self-determination. They are dictating that a person cannot seek licensed help in overcoming an unwanted temptation. The SPLC has trotted out some disaffected people who tried counseling and say it failed. They ignore voluminous evidence of people who say they were helped.

If the SPLC’s argument is valid that all temptations must cease for counseling to be legitimate, then Alcoholics Anonymous, Weight Watchers and other groups assisting with behavioral change should be charged with fraud because some clients fall off the wagon.

The SPLC is throwing the kitchen sink at this for a reason: If they win, it will set the stage for outlawing all counseling that the left does not like, including counseling by clergy. Jesus said, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you.” That’s never easy, especially when someone is trying to use the law to abolish God-given moral standards and persecute good people who are trying to help others.

Religious Right activist “Coach” Dave Daubenmire is sick and tired of people talking about racism…unless they’re talking about President Obama and liberals, who of course are the real racists and must be called out.

Daubenmire, who last year penned a column about how he is “proud to be a white man,” in which he claimed that African Americans and Latinos are the real racists, elaborated on this view in a column last week.

Discussing the Donald Sterling controversy, Daubenmire accuses President Obama, black pastors and “liberal-black” commentators such as “house negro” Juan Williams of being “race barkers” who are ruining America.

“Obama has done more to fuel racism than George Wallace could have ever done,” Daubenmire writes. “If you criticise [sic] him you are (all together now) RACIST!”

I am not going to fall into the trap. I refuse to apologize for LA Clipper owner Donald Sterling. I refuse to wear the yolk of “racist” that the media is trying to throw over the neck of white Americans. His beliefs have nothing to do with me. Permit me to skip the “I am not a racist” confession normally required for a white man to speak to the issue of blackness and race in America. The constant bellowing of “racist” has worn thin with me. I think it is time to bark back.

Our media have become race-barkers, as obnoxious as the carnival-barkers who drove customers to the bearded lady...or the Siamese twins...or the sword swallower for a fee on the midway. Today they are race-barkers who see racism behind every action...every thought...it is now “thought” that destroys people.

…

2. Obama has done more to fan the flames of racism than any man in history. Millions of white faces voted for him hoping to prove Americans weren't racist. He has made racism worse. He uses it to escape responsibility. He blames all criticism on his skin color. Others bark for him as well. Especially the media. He is nothing that he told us he was. Obama has done more to fuel racism than George Wallace could have ever done. If you criticise [sic] him you are (all together now) RACIST!

3. Fox News is a sellout. O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Susteran [sic] fall all over themselves apologizing for whitey. Their lead “house negro” is Juan Williams. He is their expert on all thinks black. Why doesn't “conservative” Fox News have a stable of conservative blacks to make the conservative position? Where are Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Alan Keyes, Jesse Lee Peterson, Pastor James David Manning, Mychal Massie...black voices who can speak to “conservative” solutions to race in America? If Juan Williams was white we would never have heard his name. Only liberal-blacks' opinions are heard on Fox. Criticism of Obama is racism. Who wants to be called racist? Can't you see it?

4. Institutional racism is a code word for extortion and corporate shakedown. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have made millions riding that horse. They make powerful white men kneel and beg. The head of the NAACP is a man named Benjamin Jealous...Jealous...need I say more? Racism is big business and business is good. The race-barkers have created a feeding frenzy. The media creates their own “experts” who make whites feel guilty for simply being white.

…

11. Black pastors in America are still on the plantation...they keep their people slaves. They support their racist brothers and blame race rather than morality for the condition of their people. Black men don't father their children nor marry their “baby mommas.” Pastors blame the white man rather than rescue their sheep. They support the government as a surrogate father. The pastors are black first and Christian second. Government is a poor god. It enslaves people to handouts. 12. This may be hard for you to believe but the battle in America is not black/white, Republican/Democrat, rich/poor, or conservative/progressive. The battle has never changed. It is good versus evil. Right versus wrong. Donald Sterling is gone. How will that help poor black kids?

13. Hear me Christian...black and white...Jehovah is our Father. The barkers want you to forget that. Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book. They must keep stirring the pot of racism if they are going to control us. They fear the power of Christians united under God's banner. Yahweh has no skin color. Some folks race to heaven and some race for hell. That's the real racism...not skin color.

Fischer told one caller — who said that Obama is a Muslim “double agent” — that he’s “talked to people that are insiders in D.C. and they’ve told me that everybody here thinks that, they won’t say it in public, but almost everybody here believes that secretly he is a follower of the Islamic faith.”

Since 2007, Subway's corporate policy has been to permit menu item substitutions in areas where the local customer base follows dietary restrictions. In India, many franchises substitute lamb and chicken items for beef and pork throughout their menus, and some do not sell any meat products at all. In the United States, Subway has several kosher franchises that do not carry pork products or serve dairy with meat. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, fewer than 200 out of 1,500 Subway sandwich franchises conform to Muslim dietary restrictions: their meat suppliers are certified halal, and no pork products are used. Instead, those locations use turkey products to substitute for ham and bacon.

But Muehlenberg warns that halal Subway restaurants are signs of “stealth jihad” and “the loss of freedom and democracy.”

Whether in Western nations or in supposed moderate Muslim nations, the spread of sharia continues unabated. And the loss of freedom and democracy is the inevitable result. As Islam continues to conquer by force of arms or stealth jihad, the liberties of the rest of the world continue to shrink.

Cases of this occurring are never ending it seems, and you finish one article on this, only to find new, even more frightening examples of creeping sharia. The capitulation of the Western world to the demands of Islam is hugely worrying, and places like Europe and the UK seem just about gone.

Consider the latest move in the UK to placate and appease Islam, even if it means snubbing your nose at Englishmen themselves. The headline reflects a growing trend to do everything to accommodate Islam, no matter what the consequences for everyone else: “Subway removes ham and bacon from nearly 200 stores and offers halal meat only after ‘strong demand’ from Muslims.”

…

And what next? Will Subway bow to further Islamic pressure and stop serving altogether during Ramadan? Will it soon remove female employees, or at least cover them in burqas to keep Muslims happy? Will they soon be lying out Islamic prayer mats for any devout Muslim seeking to do his daily religious duties while munching on his sub sandwich?

Speaking on a Tea Party Unity conference call last week, Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber predicted that the U.S. is “five, six years at the most” away from enacting unconstitutional hate-speech laws and claimed that President Obama was “testing the waters” for such laws when he criticized LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s racist comments.

Discussing anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera’s recent detention in Canada, Barber claimed that the U.S. is at most six years away from enacting hate-speech bans, which he claimed are “already happening informally” with backlash to Sterling’s comments and to former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s anti-gay campaign donation.

Anti-gay activists frequently bring up the specter of hate-speech laws in criticizing anti-discrimination laws and public pressure campaigns, although hate-speech laws are clearly unconstitutional, and existing laws preventing discrimination based on gender, race, religion and disability have not resulted in the outlawing of hate speech.

We’re probably five, six years at the most, I think, behind Canada in terms of enacting such hate-speech kind of laws and crackdown. It’s already happening informally, as we saw, again, with Mozilla, with Eich, as we’re seeing with Donald Sterling.

And it’s easy to do with Donald Sterling. You know, they can test the waters because, I think, universally people agree that what he said his horrible and he’s just kind of a not a very appealing guy and his words were reprehensible. So, they’ve already banned him for life from the NBA, they’ve already banned him from having anything to do with the team that he owns, which may or may not be appropriate, but people are clamoring and saying, ‘That’s not enough!’ And I don’t know what else they want to, do they want him tarred and feathered, do they want him drawn and quartered? They certainly want to force, and confiscate his property, and that’s what we’re talking about, and that’s what happened with Brendan Eich, they confiscated, essentially, his livelihood, his means of carrying out a living and feeding his family.

Barber went on to blame President Obama for the fact that Donald Sterling’s girlfriend had possibly broken the law in recording his comments, which he said was “indicative of the lawlessness that we’re living under under this Obama administration.”

He then alleged that President Obama was using his criticism of Sterling – which came in response to a question from a reporter – as a way of “testing the waters” for an executive order to “go after hate speech” in private conversations recorded by the NSA.

Obama’s plot would mean that “they can come after any of us for things that we have said or things that we would say,” Barber added.

President Obama did not mention that, hey, a law was violated in the taping of this, yet they are using that illegally gained fruit of the poisonous tree in order to go after this guy, to excommunicate him from the NBA, and now to try and confiscate his property. This is scary stuff, but it’s indicative of the lawlessness that we’re living under under this Obama administration.

…

He knows he can get away with the GOP, regrettably, at this point – the go along, get along Republican Party establishment who doesn’t want to be called racist – he can get away with murder. So the only thing that would stop it would be their own cost-benefit analysis determining that the American public would not be ready for such an act.

This is why I believe they’re testing the waters, with Mozilla, with Brendan Eich, President Obama weighed in on that and exacerbated and fanned the flames, with Donald Sterling, President Obama weighed in on that, fanned the flames.

I think they’re testing the waters to see what they can get away with. And if they feel like the political climate is ripe for this kind of Orwellian executive order, I would not be surprised to see him essentially through executive fiat reinstate the Fairness Doctrine over the talk waves and go after hate speech even in the context of private conversations, that as Rick points out, are apparently, have all been recorded and are on record, so they can come after any of us for things that we have said or things that we would say.

On his radio show today, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer chatted with a caller who claimed that “the problem with Obama is that he has leprosy” and “he’s infecting everybody that he touches just as the lepers did.”

“I told my wife this morning that he’s going to turn into a white man and it isn’t Caucasian, he’s fraught with leprosy,” the caller told Fischer.

While Fischer wouldn’t go as far as to say that President Obama had physical signs of leprosy, he argued that Obama is a spiritual leper who is “infecting the people around him” with his “toxic,” spiritual leprosy.

“There is something cancerous there that’s eating away at him,” Fischer said. “Because of the position he occupies, it’s eating away at our body politic.”

In an appearance yesterday on “The Steve Malzberg Show,” Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas misrepresented the recent congressional testimony of Ret. Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell and the latest Benghazi “smoking gun” email.

Farenthold told Malzberg that the “smoking gun” email altered the Benghazi “talking points” against the advice of the CIA in order to help “the president’s re-election game.”

The email that Farenthold claims shows that the White House interjected a claim about anti-American demonstrations into the Benghazi “talking points” came in response to a set of CIA talking points sent nine hours earlier that already included a mention of demonstrations.

The CIA’s talking points said that the Benghazi attack was linked to the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo over an anti-Islam YouTube video: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.”

“The White House's shifty-sounding excuse, that the ‘demonstration’ story line came not from its spin factory but from the CIA, remains surprisingly accurate,” Davie Weigel notes.

Farenthold also twisted Lovell’s testimony on the U.S. response to the attack.

“They were pleading for help in Benghazi, and I think for political considerations the answer was no,” Farenthold said of Lovell’s testimony. “We didn’t even start to send help, as an American it bothers me that we can’t respond to a situation like that.”

As for Lovell supposedly testifying that the US could have sent more assistance during the Benghazi attack, Media Matters pointed out that Lovell told Congress that it it’s “a fact” that the military couldn’t have intervened in time:

REP. JERRY CONNOLLY (D-VA): I want to read to you the conclusion of the chairman of the [Armed Services] Committee, the Republican chairman Buck McKeon, who conducted formal briefings and oversaw that report. He said, quote, "I'm pretty well satisfied that given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened, and how quickly it dissipated we probably couldn't have done much more than we did." Do you take issue with the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee? In that conclusion?

LOVELL: His conclusion that he couldn't have done much more than they did with the capability and the way they executed it?

CONNOLLY: Given the timeframe.

LOVELL: That's a fact.

CONNOLLY: OK.

LOVELL: The way it is right now. The way he stated it.

CONNOLLY: All right, because I'm sure you can appreciate, general, there might be some who, for various and sundry reasons would like to distort your testimony and suggest that you're testifying that we could have, should have done a lot more than we did because we had capabilities we simply didn't utilize. That is not your testimony? LOVELL: That is not my testimony.

RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

In a desperate attempt to distract from the GOP’s sad and dishonest effort to turn the 2012 Benghazi attack into a political sideshow, we have decided to post Paranoia-Rama today, as we always do on Fridays.

5. Obamacare Death Lists

It’s no wonder that Glenn Beck wants to recruit Rep. Louie Gohmert to run for the U.S. Senate, as the Texas GOP congressman recently warned that health care reform will lead to death lists.

Back in March, Gohmert similarly claimed that as a result of Obamacare, “we [will] see the morality rate start coming down, you die earlier, not because it’s an actual death panel but because you don’t get the treatment.”

4. Sharia Law In The Military

Yesterday, more than a year after he absurdly claimed that the Obama administration has issued a “litmus test for leadership in the military” based on whether prospective leaders “will fire on U.S. citizens or not,” activist Garrow “revealed” another dubious Obama military litmus test: whether service members “support” the “islamic [sic] ideology.”

The "new" Litmus Test of all senior officials of the Federal Government and their agencies.

As many will remember (except those who support Obama) I broke the news on January 20th of 2013 that senior members of the military were being asked a "litmus test" question to determine if they would be allowed to continue in their positions. That question determined if their loyalties lay with Obama.
Well it is now almost a year and a half later and I am now assured by many that the new criteria for senior leadership is their attitude towards and support of muslims [sic] and the islamic [sic] ideology.

Your Christian nation is now fully at the service of islam [sic] and its hateful ideology. The treason is complete and utter in its depth and breadth. Mark this date, May 1, 2014, the day that America was warned that the muslim-marxist [sic] in the White House Barack Hussein Obama is remaking the public service and government agencies into Sharia compliant entities as the next step in the subjugation of America to islam [sic].

- Dr. Jim Garrow -

please share this everywhere - the warning must be given - we are betrayed

Media Matters reports that West cited Sterling’s racist remarks in a Fox News Radio interview to call for greater public uproar over Benghazi: “The outrage of the public seems to be totally focused on Mr. Sterling but, you know, you've got this thing with Benghazi and we have an even bigger lie, an even bigger deceit, which is even more impactful on the country that no one is really caring about.”

“Mass graves dug by the government, this time for the cattle, but next time, maybe for the cowboys, right?” he asked. “I suspect that in some months to come, there's going to be some secret mission by the feds to go in there and punish the people who are standing for freedom.”

“Oath Keepers is tremendously happy that nothing happened and that this was a bad tip, a piece of ‘dis-info’, a ‘psy-op,’” a group spokesman said. “A typical FBI psy-op would plant ‘leaders’ in every militia they could infiltrate. What those sorts of FBI agents or surrogates do is always ‘handled.’”

He told Malzberg that “Obama is a dangerous, dangerous, evil man,” adding that “just because he’s black he shouldn’t get a free ride, although I know in America today if you are black you do get a free ride.”

Horowitz added that Obama is a “neo-communist” who wants to “take down” the United States.

Predictably, Horowitz also called Secretary of State John Kerry an “anti-Semite” and “an American traitor,” suggesting that Kerry believes Jews are evil.

Last Friday, Santilli filmed the press conference at which Bundy attempted to explain that his view that black people were better off under slavery isn’t racist. After Bundy spoke, Santilli announced that “somehow” the Bureau of Land Management had used the media to “hijack” the press conference by “injecting race and dividing us.”

So, naturally, Santilli decided to confront a local TV reporter who had apparently questioned Bundy on his views about race, drawing the attention of Bundy supporters standing nearby.

“Who do you work for?” Santilli demanded of the reporter, who appears to be Antonio Castelan of Channel 3 New. “Do you believe that the media is state-run?” When Castelan responded that “as a Mexican-American” he didn’t think his questioning on race was biased, Santilli hounded him: “Why do you believe you need to inject Mexican-Americanism into your line of questioning?”

“As a Mexican-American you should know that we’re defending your rights, and you’re working for the state-run media, and you should know that, especially by the bias in the line of your questioning,” he yelled as Castelan walked away, hounded by Bundy supporters. “You’re not serving the American public and you do not deserve even First Amendment constitutional rights, sir!”

Later, talking to another reporter, Santilli accused Glenn Beck, who has criticized the Bundy ranch protester, of promoting a “race war” on behalf of the United Nations’ Agenda 21. That is surprising, given that Beck has written an entire book warning about the very same Agenda 21 conspiracy theory that he is being accused of promoting.

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives voted down an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have allowed physicians working for the Department of Veterans Affairs to discuss medical marijuana options with patients in states where it is legal.

Rep. John Fleming took to conservative talk radio to voice opposition to the move, appearing on the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” yesterday to warn that marijuana will lead to “death and destruction” among military veterans. “We’re creating a vicious cycle that could lead to more suicides, worse depression,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“Why in the world would we want to go out and damage and injure and even create death and destruction to our beloved veterans who have put their lives on the line by giving them marijuana?”

In an interview the same day, Fleming told Ernest Istook, the former GOP congressman and host of “Istook Live,” that “there is not a stitch of evidence to support” claims about the benefits of medical marijuana.

“It’s like adding gasoline to a fire. You would never order for a veteran that they begin drinking alcohol in response to PTSD, you would never tell a veteran they should use heroin as a solution to their depression problems, well that’s what you’re doing by suggesting the use of marijuana,” he said.

Fleming also dismissed concerns about the incarceration rate of people convicted of crimes surrounding marijuana use, alleging that the push to liberalize drug laws drives from financial interests.

“There’s a lot of money to be made,” he said. “Look at the downstream cost to society when you have, as in the case of the VA, all of these veterans who are going to have lung cancer, emphysema, brain damage, heart disease as a result of that so what we’re doing really is putting money in the pockets of some very greedy people out there who are taking advantage of this.”

Former Bush administration official Robert R. Reilly is out with a new book called “Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything,” which has won endorsements from John Eastman of the National Organization for Marriage and ex-gay therapist Joseph Nicolosi.

Reilly appeared on “The Janet Mefferd Show” yesterday to explain that gay people are worse than murderers, who at least feel remorse for their crimes.

After the person murders someone or looks at pornography, they come to see that what they did was actually wrong, they can’t excuse it and moral order is restored and they’re contrite for having done so. But what if you organize your life around something that is wrong? Then you must construct a more permanent rationalization that prevents your conscience from returning to tell you that you’ve just done something profoundly wrong.

This is exactly the case with active homosexuals, now extended to homosexual marriage, where they have to say that wrong is right and not only is it right but it’s normative, morally normative, so we need to teach it, we need to bless it in marriages, we need to ordain it in churches and we need to enforce it in our laws. And that is what is happening.

He went on to allege that marriage equality — or as he called it earlier in the interview, “sodomitical marriage” — is “an act of injustice” because it robs people of “the goods” from opposite-sex relationships.

When you take the goods proper to a marriage, which exactly can only exist between a man and a woman because those sexual powers are unitive and procreative, therefore only the relationship between a man and a woman can be spousal. Now when you take the goods and the obligations proper to that state of marriage and transfer them to two men or two women, that is an act of injustice.

You are giving the goods to something — you are not behaving toward that thing according to what it is, which is not a marriage because it can’t be unitive and it can’t be procreative. So you’re lying, you’re creating an unreality and assigning to something a good which it doesn’t deserve. It’s a fraud.

Reilly explained that homosexuality is intrinsically wrong and a misuse of “sexual powers.”

“The sexual act in homosexual in males is sodomy, and how could an unchaste act be a source of fidelity?” Reilly said. “That’s a contradiction in terms.”

“That’s as absurd as saying the eye isn’t for seeing. Who are you to say the eye is for seeing or the ear is for hearing? It’s not we who say that, it’s the eye that lets us know when we examine it. And we can’t just forget just because we get below the waist that all of the sudden, ‘Well, who knows what these organs are for?’ It’s some sort of epistemological amnesia: ‘Who could imagine what our sexual powers are for?’”

But he ended the interview on a high note, declaring that Americans will begin to fight back against this “highly disordered, immoral act.”

Reilly: What is the nature of this act of sodomy? We can only judge the nature of that act when we examine the nature and purpose of our sexual powers. Just through our reason we can know that this is a highly disordered, immoral act and a profound misuse of our sexual powers, which is why it has been condemned in Western civilization for 4,000 years, and not just in Western civilization.

Mefferd: So what do you think is ahead for our country? Do you have any expectation at all that the United States will one day wake up and say, ‘Wait a second, we’ve been had, we need to really fight this.’

Reilly: Yes, I think that will happen, it’s just a matter of how much damage will be done before it happens. This will fail because it is against nature. Its principal enemy is reality.

Alan Keyes marked yesterday’s National Day of Prayer with a WorldNetDaily column asking people to pray for Americans to “reject the ‘leaders’ complicit” in President Obama’s “assault on religious liberty” and “effort to overthrow the constitutional self-government of the American people.”

Keyes, who ran against Obama in the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate race, said Obama’s allies “pretend that Obama’s black skin is some kind of magic cloak that prevents the nation from interfering with his systematic nullification of the Supreme Law of the Land” and intend to “manipulate the nation’s conscience with respect to racial injustice to make cowards of us all.”

Among Obama’s supposed transgressions? His “shill[ing] for this genocidal movement” of abortion rights “with fanatical zeal.”

The most egregious example of these policies is, of course, the targeted promotion of abortion in the black community. Throughout his career, Obama has shilled for this genocidal movement with fanatical zeal. Tacit support for it extends to the supposed “conservatives” who slyly do everything in their power to promote the view that defending the God-endowed unalienable right to life, and the rights of the natural family, is “divisive” and politically harmful. These “conservatives” even go so far as to embrace a view of the U.S. Constitution that denies its logical dependence on the acknowledgment of God-endowed rights featured in the American Declaration of Independence.

On account of my adamant refusal to stop applying the logic and principles of the Declaration, I became persona non grata in the GOP once it fell firmly under the effectively unchallenged control of leaders committed to the elitist faction’s agenda. The evidence is now beyond conclusive that they are deeply committed to collaborating with Obama as he carries out the elitist faction’s effort to overthrow the constitutional self-government of the American people. That’s why, despite their repeated evocation of Obama’s “lawless” activities, they adamantly refuse to do what’s necessary to organize the nation’s political will in order to apply the provisions of the Constitution that empower the American people to end his lawless tenure.

In this respect they falsely evoke and manipulate the racial fixation. They pretend that Obama’s black skin is some kind of magic cloak that prevents the nation from interfering with his systematic nullification of the Supreme Law of the Land. Thus slyly they manipulate the nation’s conscience with respect to racial injustice to make cowards of us all, during the very time when the paralysis induced by that cowardice will assure the success of the elitist faction’s bid to end our liberty (i.e., right-securing constitutional self-government).

On this National Day of Prayer, I pray that God will open the eyes, encourage the spirit and enlighten the mind of the American people so that they will recognize and reject the “leaders” complicit in this assault on righteous liberty, whatever party label they wear. And so that they remember, instead, that God has provided the only leadership we need, dwelling in every heart that has accepted the word by which He fulfills His promise of salvation.

Why should anyone be surprised that the National Day of Prayer, led by right-wing activist Shirley Dobson, turned into an anti-Obama event?

Dobson promoted the event by warning that America “is being invaded by evils such as pornography, abortion, infidelity, same-sex marriage and the agenda of the far Left,” and invited Jonathan Cahn, who believes that President Obama’s re-election and marriage equality are signs of the End Times, to be the event’s keynote speaker.

Immediately after James Dobson, the Focus on the Family founder and Shirley’s husband, framed the National Day of Prayer as an apolitical event, he blasted Obama as the “abortion president.”

“Come and get me, Mr. President, if you must,” he said, quoting a letter he sent to Obama last week.

“I will not yield to your wicked regulations.” This is not a huge surprise coming from Dobson, who back in 2012 exposed the highly political nature of the National Day of Prayer.

Speaking with Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America after the 2012 election, Dobson said that his wife and National Day of Prayer vice chairman John Bornschein had used that year’s event to pray against Obama’s re-election.

Dobson: Many, many, many Christians were praying and we really need to address that issue first: where was God? Because there were these ’40 Days of Prayer,’ there were several of those that took place, where people fasted and prayed for forty days asking the Lord for His intervention on Election Day. We did a program last week where my wife Shirley came in with her vice-chairman John Bornschein and told how three hundred Gideon prayer warriors came to Washington, went to every single office of the House of Representatives and the Senate and prayed for the occupant, prayed for our representatives, went to the White House, went in a vigil to the Supreme Court, which is now at great risk, and went to the Pentagon. People like that were praying all over this country and the Lord said no.

Last week, Glenn Beck was very upset about reports that the biomedical waste that was being burned at an Oregon waste-to-energy facility included the remains of aborted fetuses, comparing it on his radio show to the science fiction film "Soylent Green" while screaming "electricity is people, your electricity is people!"

It was, for Beck, simply further proof that America is in a moral nosedive and will soon become "the most horrific nation on the face of the earth" as he grew somber and beseeched his listeners to "go off the grid" if this is how our nation's energy is being produced.

"Do not be a part of that. Is there anything more evil than that?"

Your browser does not support iframes.

Now, a week later, the facility at the center of the controversy is speaking out and asserting that the report was "completely false":

A waste-to-energy garbage burning operation in the tiny unincorporated community of Brooks made global news last week, after allegations surfaced that the plant was processing aborted fetuses from Canada — despite express denials by the facility’s operator ... The allegation that aborted babies were being burned for electricity sparked a frenzy of media attention, being picked up by hundreds of outlets across the country and the world.

But as it turned out, the accusation was completely erroneous, according to Jill Stueck, vice president of marketing and communications for Covanta Energy Corporation, the company that owns and operates the plant in Brooks.

“It’s not just inaccurate; it’s completely false,” she said.

Stueck said “fetal tissue” refers to other biological material associated with birth, such as umbilical cords and placentas — not fetuses. Fetuses would be classified as “human remains” and are in a different category.

“This is a mixing-together of terms that mean completely different things,” she said. “We’re not burning babies.”

Stueck said she was as shocked as anyone when she saw the news last week.

“It’s a horrifying, horrible concept,” she said. “I was like, ‘If this is true, I’m alarmed. This is my company, and this is not something I would support.’”

Will Beck, who prides himself on always owning up to his mistakes (despite the fact that he actually hardly ever does so) correct the record?